Think about that: what does it mean if we use the same words to refer to people that we do for inanimate objects? #dehumanisation #theotherhttps://twitter.com/mpotra/status/808581463419523072 …
-
-
.
@aral I think you overshot a little. Terms like "entity", "object" do the same in the domain of language. Abstraction, not dehumanisation.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
personally [and i'm on your side as a rule] i think you're veering off sense here... else you could say the same for addresses
-
before you know it, human info theory extrapolates into stupid territory. can robots have "arms", can needles have eyes
-
more to the point and less facetiously, you can't say "don't use x" it makes no sense without 1st saying "please use y"
-
... and once you say "please use y" ppl will /naturally/ - because we anthropomorphise - apply that word to raw "data" anyway
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
.
@aral Um, what? Why is that a problem? We have to have separate sets of vocabulary for talking about people and rocks? -
Data isn't about feelings. It's about . . . um, data.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.